​Earlier this week, the Expressreported the exclusive news that Gaia.com has been making a ton of money off a fake mystery concocted from the mutilation of human corpses to feed the internet’s and cable TV’s obsession with ancient astronauts. Or, to be more exact, the Express reported that DNA tests on the so-called three-fingered Nazca mummies promoted on Gaia.com as evidence of alien contact with Earth confirmed that the bodies are human, or at least started out as real human corpses before they were manipulated to appear like stereotypical space aliens.

​Meanwhile, this week Nephilim theorist L. A. Marzulli delivered another hour-long rant, this time about UFOs and government conspiracies. I tuned in only because he promised on his blog to reveal the “truth” about Blacks and “transgender’s” (sic) on his broadcast, and I had a morbid curiosity as to what hideous right wing talking point he planned to warp into a disgusting explosion of intolerance. He did briefly mention “Black on Black killings” being “through the flippin’ roof” (murder rates are up slightly but are still near historic lows) and even mistakenly said “Black on crack killings” at one point, but overall he ignored his stated topics. The “truth about trangenderism” had to wait for the last minutes of the video. “There’s a satanic, occult dimension to this,” Marzulli said. He added that a transgender man’s “artificial penis” does not work and therefore the person is not a true male. But his greatest ire was reserved for biological males who surrender their holy phallic birthright. He can understand why women would want to become men, since men are awesome, but so impossible is the reverse for him that he can only attribute it to a satanic attack on the holy power of masculine authority. “The fallen angels are obsessed with the female form, completely obsessed with it,” he said. He threatened next week to talk about how shape-shifting angels are convincing men to become women for their horny pleasure and to fulfill a satanic agenda.

But so much for that. He also included a lengthy discussion of why he believes science doesn’t understand enough about consciousness to exclude interdimensional demon-piloted flying saucers (don’t ask), after which we got to the meat of his video. Marzulli delivered this diatribe about his allegation that an evil liberal axis of Obama and the Alphabet Corporation (parent of Google and YouTube) are conspiring to prevent him from making money from his hate:

Certain factions of the government did not like what I had to say when Mr. Obama was president, so much so—and we’ve known this before—the IRS is used as a way to go after people like me, just like YouTube is demonetizing certain conservative news sites. Now, who’s sitting there behind the desk looking at my YouTube video and demonetizing it and saying, “Well, it’s not ad-friendly.” I mean, how is that done? How is that done? Is it not ad-friendly because I’m saying something that’s against the person’s world view who’s sitting there? And they’re making the judgment? See where this goes? Unless it’s free speech, including hate speech—and let me make this really clear—I don’t agree with anything that the Ku Klux Klan says on any level, in any way, shape, or form. However, as much as I despise the Klan and despise the Neo-Nazis, they have the right to say what they want to say, as protected by the First Amendment. I can disagree with it. I can blog against it vehemently. I will do so and have done so in the past. And I can voice my opinion. But the moment we begin to marginalize free speech, to say “well, that’s offensive; we can’t go there”—the moment we do that, then we’re down a slippery slope. Then who is the arbitrator and who decides what is good speech and what is hate speech? See where I’m going with this?

​Notice the way Marzulli made himself into a martyr for free speech when no one has prevented him from speaking or sharing his hate videos online? His videos are freely available to all comers; the only restriction is that YouTube will not place advertisements on them for cash. YouTube, a private company, exercised editorial discretion in saying that advertisers’ products and services would not be made to pay to appear before such videos, mostly because few companies want to have their brands explicitly associated with intolerance. Refusing to financially support a YouTube video is not the same as government-mandated censorship.

YouTube makes its monetization policy quite plain, and Marzulli agreed to it when he signed up for YouTube service. The policy states that, along with hateful, explicit, or demeaning content, content related to current events (such as political commentary) is not eligible to monetize: “Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.” Marzulli himself admits that his videos that are not monetized are filled with discussion of “radical Islamic terror.” And there you have it. He’s mad because of a policy he agreed to in the free market he claims to support. If you don’t like it, L. A., start your own competing video service rather than bitch about the policies of the one you are using for free. Isn’t that what the free market commands you to do? Sometimes I wonder if he confuses the Invisible Hand with the Holy Ghost.

At the end of the video, after disparaging transgendered people as tools of Satan and concluding that they are psychologically damaged, Marzulli returned to his most precious subject: “There’s no way they’re going to monetize this video. […] They’re going to demonetize it because I’m not ad-friendly. […] Where’s my free speech? Where’s my First Amendment?” He seems to forget that advertising dollars are a business transaction, not an inalienable right. No one has a right to ad dollars.

The truth might set you free, but not for free. “Free” is a word Marzulli hates. It’s all about those sweet dollar dollar bills, y’all. And yes, that is a decade-old reference. That makes it a few centuries more recent than Marzulli’s medieval misanthropy.

Wow, disgusting human beings all. These fake alien ones should all be jailed.

Reply

MARS VLTOR

9/29/2017 10:42:21 am

Why should they be jailed?

Reply

Dan D'Silva

9/29/2017 11:24:27 am

I guess it remains to be seen, but my hunch is they didn't get permission to use mutilate someone's corpse and put it on display.

Americanegro

9/29/2017 12:36:35 pm

"(murder rates are up slightly but are still near historic lows)"
Good news for the people of Chicago. That's like saying "We had a beautiful summer, I don't understand what the Puerto Ricans are belly-aching about."

"he promised on his blog (in text since removed) to reveal the “truth” about Blacks [sic] and “transgender’s” (sic) on his broadcast"

The apparent trigger is reproduced below and is at the time of this writing still on Marzulli's blog. It does indeed mention "truth", "Black", and "transgender's". https://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/2017/09/
_________________________________________________
"Tonight’s topics….

Marzulli intentionally conflated Chicago statistics with national ones. National crime rates remain near historic lows, even as Chicago remains an outlier in terms of murders. That's a bit like claiming that all of America is underwater because Hurricane Irma hit Houston.

Reply

Americanegro

9/29/2017 02:04:37 pm

I didn't listen, that's your particular penance; you listen so we don't have to.

"(murder rates are up slightly but are still near historic lows)"

It's the RATE of INCREASE in murder rates that have decreased. It's like Margaret Thatcher said about socialism, eventually you run out of other people to kill.

Yeah, politicians have used that sort of deceit for ages. Remember how the budget deficit was always being reduced? Folks would throw that in your face, not realizing their folly for parroting their favored politician... who of course was only championing the reduction in the rate of increase.

R Veltri

1/13/2018 09:36:33 pm

I see you've got a donation button top right. Proof no profession has a monopoly on the interest in $$$.

Bob Jase

9/29/2017 01:11:20 pm

"Marzulli said. He added that a transgender man’s “artificial penis” does not work and therefore the person is not a true male. "

So is Viagra also from Satan?

Reply

Momus

9/29/2017 02:37:05 pm

By the logic of it, it should be the opposite. Fallen angels are fascinated with female form, therefore turning from male to female is evil. Turning from female to male is evil chiefly because of non-functional (i.e. "not-a-propper") penis. So whatever makes penis functional should be good. ...Does it make gun good or evil, though?

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

9/29/2017 04:47:52 pm

THE GUN IS GOOD. THE PENIS IS EVIL.

Americanegro

9/29/2017 05:18:45 pm

This my penis! This is my gun! One is for fighting, one is for fun!

Only Me

9/29/2017 02:48:25 pm

Someone should tell Marzulli free speech =/= free enterprise. I love when these snake oil salesmen reveal they're more concerned about money than their professed belief in the claims they make.

I admit I'm not shocked the alleged alien mummies are actually human. It was only natural that hoaxers would graduate from animal carcasses to human remains.

Reply

Bill Nye Science Fraud

9/29/2017 05:28:57 pm

"=/=" ≠ "≠".

Reply

gdave

9/29/2017 02:53:02 pm

@AmericanNegro,

In response to Jason writing,

"(murder rates are up slightly but are still near historic lows)",

you wrote:

"It's the RATE of INCREASE in murder rates that have decreased. It's like Margaret Thatcher said about socialism, eventually you run out of other people to kill."

That's just factually straight wrong.

Per the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI, in 2015 (the last year for which full official statistics are available) was 4.9 per 100,000. That's an increase from 4.4/100k in 2014, and unofficial statistics indicate that it has gone up in 2016 and 2017 as well. It peaked in 1991 at 9.8/100k, and then went down almost every year until 2015, when it started ticking up again. You have to go back to 1964 to find a murder rate as low as it was in 2015.

Look at your own sources.

The Times headline is that the murder rate in the U.S. is the highest since 2008. 2008 was during a 25-year long decline in the murder rate, and you'd have to go back to 1965 to find a lower murder rate.

You may want to take another, close look at your last cite, the 538 article. It explicitly states that it is only examining violent crime in big cities. In particular, take another look at the last paragraph in that piece:

"The national picture: We’re still near historic lows"

In point of fact, you've got the situation exactly reversed. We are currently seeing an uptick in murder rates, concentrated in major cities. The rate of increase, per unofficial statistics, over the last two years is actually quite high. The overall murder rate, however, still remains historically low.

Reply

gdave

9/29/2017 02:54:56 pm

Sorry, typo in the first sentence of the first big paragraph. Should have been:

...in 2015...the murder rate was 4.9 per 100,000...

Reply

Americanegro

9/29/2017 06:07:23 pm

"The Times headline is that the murder rate in the U.S. is the highest since 2008. 2008 was during a 25-year long decline in the murder rate [WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE AT THE VERY LEAST BUT REQUIRES THAT YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE THE INCREASE IN THE MURDER RATE BETWEEN 2000 AND 2006], and you'd have to go back to 1965 to find a lower murder rate."

So "The murder rate went down then up then down then up, and it was really low 40 years ago" is an argument supporting what?

The fact remains that the murder rate is INCREASING but the rate of increase in the murder rate (the 2nd derivative) is DECREASING.

Reply

gdave

9/30/2017 12:33:31 pm

"YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE THE INCREASE IN THE MURDER RATE BETWEEN 2000 AND 2006"

From 2000 - 2006, the murder rate remained basically flat, with a small increase (of 3 murders in a million). So, yes, you're right that there was an increase, but I'm not "ignoring it". It's just a short period of relatively flat rates in a longer period. Again, murder peaked at 9.8 in 1991, ticked down and then up in 1992-1993, then declined every single year from 1994-2000, then ticked up marginally from 2001-2006, then declined again every almost every single year from 2007-2014 (it remained flat 2011-2012). It ticked up again in 2015 - but to a rate that was still less than half that of 1991, and lower than any year in the 2000s, 1990s, 1980s, or 1970s, or the last half of the 1960s. And that 2000-2006 uptick, 0.3/100k over a six year period, is tiny compared to the decreases during that period - down 0.8 in a single year twice, and down overall by 5.4 from the peak in 1991 to the trough in 2014.

And again, those are actual rates, not rates of increase.

"So "The murder rate went down then up then down then up, and it was really low 40 years ago" is an argument supporting what?"

As you rephrase it, of course, it's not an argument for much of anything. As I actually made it, it's an argument in support of Jason's statement that "murder rates are up slightly but are still near historic lows". It's also an argument against your statement that "It's the RATE of INCREASE in murder rates that have decreased", which, again, is just flat wrong. The actual rate of murders has declined over the last 25 years, before increasing over the last two (probably - we still don't have official statistics).

"The fact remains that the murder rate is INCREASING but the rate of increase in the murder rate (the 2nd derivative) is DECREASING."

Yes, the murder rate is increasing - over the last two years, after a 25 year decline to historic lows. (And yes, there was a six year period in there where the rate had a marginal uptick before decreasing for another eight years in a row). Saying the rate of increase is decreasing is nonsensical in this context. Again, the rate of increase is actually increasing - it's gone from decreasing to increasing over the last two years. And again, the actual rate is still historically low.

Again, you may want to look at the sources you cite again a bit more closely. They literally make the exact same point Jason made, and which I am making, and to which you seem to object: the murder rate is up over the last two years, but it still at historic lows.

BigNick

9/29/2017 09:34:16 pm

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

The murder rate increased in 2015 and 2016, but they are still near the low of 4.4 per 100000, or to put it another way- "murder rates are up slightly but are still near historic lows."

There was no reason to correct this statement except you like to hear yourself talk (or type, whatever).

Your statement that the rate of increase is decreasing is true. .5 per 100000 from 2014 to 2015 and .4 per 100000 from 2015 to 2016. As you can see looking at the chart (If you bother to) you will see that is not indicative of a long term trend and is almost useless without more data

Reply

B. Lloyd Reese

10/4/2017 01:48:14 am

Sad, but it just confirmed what I realized years ago. Marzulli is more concerned about making money than getting the Gospel out or showing a real Christian attitude.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.